Appeal No. 2001-1739
Application 08/892,903
Akademie teaches in the figure, a wedge 10 and pen 11 where the
wedge 10 has a slope engaging pen 11 for fine focus. However, we
fail to find that Brock or Akademie provides any evidence that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to use the slot
provided by cylindrical sleeve 38 of Brock to allow the pen 10 of
Akademie to pass through to provide gross adjustment. In
particular, Brock is silent as to why cylindrical sleeve 38 is
shown as only partially surrounding the optical tube 16. Brock
only teaches that the cylindrical sleeve 38 should provide
sufficient friction engagement between the engaging surfaces to
retain the optical tube in its various adjusted positions.
Akademie on the other hand, shows the wedge 10 completely
surrounding the tube and teaches other means for gross
adjustment. Therefore, there is no suggestion of modifying the
Akademie wedge to provide a slot so that the pen 11 may pass
through to provide gross adjustment. Therefore, we will not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007